Slashdot Mirror
Two Years After FBI vs Apple, Encryption Debate Remains (axios.com)
It's been two years since the FBI and Apple got into a giant fight over encryption following the San Bernardino shooting, when the government had the shooter's iPhone, but not the password needed to unlock it, so it asked Apple to create a way inside. What's most surprising is how little has changed since then. From a report: The encryption debate remains unsettled, with tech companies largely opposed and some law enforcement agencies still making the case to have a backdoor. The case for strong encryption: Those partial to the tech companies' arguments will note that cyberattacks and hacking incidents have become even more common, with encryption serving as a valuable way to protect individuals' personal information. The case for backdoors: Criminals are doing bad stuff and when devices are strongly encrypted they can do it in what amounts to the perfect dark alley, completely hidden from public view.
Fuck off. I donâ(TM)t want the government to keep me safe. I want the government to keep me free.
Nowhere does it guarantee a right to privacy. The government needs to be able to keep people safe and they cannot do this unless they have to the correct tools.
You should read the Constitution more carefully. The ninth Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Constitution is about what the federal government is allowed to do. It does not enshrine certain rights and exclude others.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The problem is that this is not the correct tool. You gain no safety because the criminals will simply move on while you eradicate the safety of your citizens by exposing them to hackers (both organized crime and foreign government sponsored) that get a hold of that backdoor.
"Government only backdoors" do not exist. If you create an entry point for a benign actor, you create an attack vector for a nefarious one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Believe it or not politicians do listen to people with security knowledge. I have spoken to numerous Senators and members of the House on this issue over the last few years. Yes their knowledge is limited but the ones I have spoken to have grasped the complexity of the issue.
Two examples. One member of the House who is a former prosecutor explained to me how he evolved on the issue over time and now opposes backdoors. A member of the Senate who you see on the TV almost every night cornered me at a meeting to talk about encryption until his aides pulled him away. He too was originally uncertain why a back door was needed, but now understands the problem. They had mostly already come to these positions, but were seeking out further opinions. Which is exactly what we want them doing, asking questions.
And as of now there are no government requirements on backdoors. So far our arguments have won out. But this issue is not going away, and I will keep trying to have as many conversations as I can to keep the people in the position to decide informed. Members of Congress mostly know what the people around them tell them (they don't disagree with this assessment), and when it comes to tech that is mostly lobbyists. But there are groups and people working behind the scenes making the case. And they are being heard.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato